- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: in retrospect, Cars is not the shitshow the MTV Board argues
Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:55 pm to TeddyPadillac
Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:55 pm to TeddyPadillac
This review hits the nail on the head
quote:
For there is no such droll subtext to Pixar’s latest animated flick, which seems to think that there’s something inherently amusing in automobiles that are just like people, except they’re metal. Like this: There’s a sight gag early in the film in which there’s a long line at the women’s restroom at a racetrack while the guys just zip right into the men’s room, no waiting necessary. It’s meant to be comical cuz they’re cars! But they’re people! But they’re cars! Huh?
There’s pretty much no excuse for the whole movie, in fact. The animation is gorgeous, of course — that’s a given now with animated films; they’re all gorgeous to look at. So it’ll distract the kiddies, if they don’t get too fidgety in the drawn-out, muddled middle of the tale, and the few potentially offensive moments will go over their heads. But animation geeks waiting for the next Toy Story will have to keep waiting. The few bits that tickle are purely in the background — the shingle for the “doctor of internal combustion”; the insects that are tiny, winged VW Bugs; the airplane contrails that look like tire tracks. Alas, there’s nothing in the up-front stuff where your attention is meant to be that’s at all unexpected or unusual or witty. Lightning McQueen (the voice of Owen Wilson: Wedding Crashers, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou) is a hotshot city car stuck in the country where he’ll learn that rusty cars are people too — you could swap out the cars for human beings and not change the story one little bit, and you can get away with that, maybe, if you’re ripping off Hamlet, like The Lion King did. But Cars is ripping off Doc Hollywood. That’s pretty damn depressing for a medium, animation, that should be all about flights of fancy.
The toys of Toy Story were not simply plastic people — they were toys, with peculiarly toy-ish motivations and desires and dreams. That’s not true of the cars of Cars, who are just metal humans. (Cars who felt pecularily, car-ishly protective of the humans they carried around could make for an intriguing tale… but there are no humans at all here.) And where Toy Story could inject the unpredictable — what a smart and funny move to make the big bad T. rex dinosaur a coward voiced by nebbishy Wallace Shawn — here, the rusty old rural tow truck is, quelle surprise, a dumb redneck voiced by Larry the Cable Guy. Where’s the fun in that? Where’s the tickle in that?
1
Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:08 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Neither of my two children have watched Ratatouille or Brave. I've put it on and tried to get them to watch it, and they may for a little while, and then do something else.
Cars does not wish it was those two lesser movies.
And any of you are yet to explain how Cars was so easy to merchandise.
Because cars are probably the single most popular boy toy in the world?
And yeah, kids getting bored with a movie is an indication of quality.
So Cars is a better movie than 2001 just because it's more boring? The ends of both those films makes them superior to Cars IMO.Posted on 10/7/15 at 1:26 pm to udtiger
Cars 1 was very enjoyable.
Cars 2 - meh. Suffered for "making secondary character the lead" syndrome. Much like Minions (ugh - so bad)
Cars 2 - meh. Suffered for "making secondary character the lead" syndrome. Much like Minions (ugh - so bad)
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:01 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
so all the toys come to life but racecar still needs batteries to run? Where's the logic there? Does Woody need batteries to come to life? How can all the toys move without batteries but racecar needs batteries to move?
Dory's memory is full of inconsistencies.
You're missing the point, and that's ok, this is a tough discussion.
quote:
Everything in the movie Cars, was a car. and the cows weren't cars, they were tractors, and they made fart noises when you "tipped" them, which is funny.
No, they were meant to be cows, in a field. Think about this: The Cows didn't really seem to "evolve." They were Cars, with the properties of Cows, in a world of Cars who had the properties of humans. So essentially, it was like putting neanderthals, or some other sub-human ancestor, in the present day.
No sense does this movie make.
quote:
You look for reasons to not like Cars, and give dumb examples that can easily be made for Toy Story but you choose to ignore them when watching Toy Story, which most would acknowledge is the best animated film.
As i stated before, i think the dislike for some of you is that fact that Mater is the main attraction of the movie, and some of you have a bias towards him b/c it's Larry the Cable Guy. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen sound perfect for Toy Story. Goodman and Crystal are perfect for Monsters. Larry the Cable Guy is perfect for Mater, yet some of you are to refined to sit back and enjoy that character for what it is. And as i said before, I dont' like Larry the Cable Guy.
Dude we can chat about this and have fun, but let's not go down the road of you assuming or telling me why I don't like something. I know why I don't like something.
I have no bias towards the Larry the Cable Guy and he is really maybe the least important problem in the film. He's a problem, just not an important one (until Cars 2 that is).
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:02 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
OMLandshark
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:04 pm to Indigold
quote:
This review hits the nail on the head
Bingo.
Everything is in service to the wink-wink-nod-nod that "THESE ARE CARS THAT ACT LIKE HUMANS! DO YOU GET IT!"
Toy Story was about toys. Not toys acting like humans. Just Toys. How they relate to humanity, to growing up. Etc. Toy Story is way more thoughtful than Cars.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:04 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
Pixar is so successful because they make fantastic movies, period. And they can be enjoyed by kids and adults alike.
Agreed. Sure, there's a money motive, but Pixar/Disney is such a trusted brand because their primary goal is to make GOOD movies first and foremost, under the logic that money will follow from putting out a consistently excellent product. If not, we'd just rate the films on gross and go home. But that's not why people discuss movies. Or hold them dear.
I'd argue also that Pixar has the opposite problem with one of its more critically adored films in Ratatouille. It aims at adults, but kids hate it (or at least the ones I know). So I think it is a failure as a FAMILY film, which is the genre, if it can't connect with the whole family. Ratatouille and Cars are the opposite ends of that spectrum. Neither are outright bad films, but I don't think either fully succeed as quality family films.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 2:16 pm to Baloo
quote:
I'd argue also that Pixar has the opposite problem with one of its more critically adored films in Ratatouille. It aims at adults, but kids hate it (or at least the ones I know). So I think it is a failure as a FAMILY film, which is the genre, if it can't connect with the whole family. Ratatouille and Cars are the opposite ends of that spectrum. Neither are outright bad films, but I don't think either fully succeed as quality family films.
That's an interesting analysis, and I think it explains why Cars was my 16 seed and Ratatouille was my 15 seed in the tournament. One was critically acclaimed, but unpopular especially with kids), the other was popular (especially with kids) but critically mediocre.
ETA: Frozen had popularity AND critical score, which is why I overrated it as a 2 seed, but then paired it against a truly good movie from a critical perspective, but not from a kid popularity perspective.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:08 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
No, they were meant to be cows, in a field. Think about this: The Cows didn't really seem to "evolve." They were Cars, with the properties of Cows, in a world of Cars who had the properties of humans. So essentially, it was like putting neanderthals, or some other sub-human ancestor, in the present day.
That makes no sense whatsoever. They were "cows" just like the cars were people. They went "cow tipping" and when they did it made the tractors make a fart noise. That's funny to every kid that has ever watched it, and it was funny to the kid in me. That was the sole purpose of that scene, to make you laugh, not dissect the evolution of cows in the movie.
This movie was meant to appeal to adults by taking cars and making them have human problems but with a car twist. That's it. It is meant to be funny not realistic in evolution.
quote:
I have no bias towards the Larry the Cable Guy and he is really maybe the least important problem in the film. He's a problem, just not an important one (until Cars 2 that is).
I wouldn't call him a problem, considering Mater is one of the most loved characters Disney has.
Doesn't sound like you have no bias, and that review just lamented more as to how the cool hip critics hate for Larry the Cable Guy and his brand of comedy, which was very popular at that time, may have influenced many adults in how they viewed this film. It's ok to laugh at jokes made by Larry the Cable Guy. It doens't make you a white trash redneck to think something he said was funny, but some people will never admit that he's funny b/c they think they are lowering themselves by doing so. and again, I do not care for him, he's funny at times, but i think theres a lot a people that hate him and dont like the comedy he represents, or mainly the crowd he attracts.
It's ok for the TRex to be an idiot, b/c we dont' know who it is, but we dont' like the fact that Mater is an idiot b/c it's Larry the Cable Guy. That's what I gathered from that review.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:19 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Because cars are probably the single most popular boy toy in the world?
They are now.
Transformers, GI Joes, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, were all more popular than Hot Wheels, and now Cars sells 5x more than all of those combined, and they have all been making a comeback in the last 5-10 years.
The merchandising for Toy Story is just as easy as Cars, yet Cars has done 4x's more. You can sell a Woody or a Buzz just as easy as a Lightning McQueen or Mater.
quote:
And yeah, kids getting bored with a movie is an indication of quality
It is when it's an animated kids movie. Where was Ratatouille 2 if it was such a good movie?
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:34 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Toy Story was about toys. Not toys acting like humans. Just Toys. How they relate to humanity, to growing up. Etc. Toy Story is way more thoughtful than Cars.
Toy Story is so great because the universe is incredibly layered and incredibly terrifying when you think about it. Toy Story 1 didn't even crack surface, with only going after a kid who loves blowing up his toys. These toys Gods are children, Gods that will certainly abandon them at some point, and that creates quite a fricked up little world about a group that is doomed to be left for dead in a landfill.
Cars is just that: Cars acting like humans. It's ridiculous and requires almost no creativity besides car puns. That's all these movies can be boiled down to. It is not important at all in the Cars franchise that they are cars. You wouldn't change the plot at all just by making them humans. Can't say the same with Toy Story, Inside Out, Wall-e, or Ratatouille when it comes to their respected universes. These movies tell us about the light and dark sides of nature that we take for granted, and everyone can relate to them. Not so much with Cars.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:44 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
It's ok for the TRex to be an idiot, b/c we dont' know who it is, but we dont' like the fact that Mater is an idiot b/c it's Larry the Cable Guy. That's what I gathered from that review.
The review was saying that the big, bad t-rex being a nasally neurotic wimp is funny because it's not what's expected. On the other hand, a rusty tow truck being a dumb redneck is exactly what you'd expect.
quote:
It is not important at all in the Cars franchise that they are cars. You wouldn't change the plot at all just by making them humans.
That's true, and it's compounded by the fact that if it was humans instead of cars, it would basically fit the Hallmark movie formula.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:49 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
That makes no sense whatsoever. They were "cows" just like the cars were people. They went "cow tipping" and when they did it made the tractors make a fart noise. That's funny to every kid that has ever watched it, and it was funny to the kid in me. That was the sole purpose of that scene, to make you laugh, not dissect the evolution of cows in the movie.
Think: why would there be something like a cow in this universe? Why is the tractor not like everyone else in this universe? Yes, we get it, they're making fun of cows. It's not high concept, nor do I find it all that funny. Sure kids will, but it's something that I think just about anyone could come up with. Pixar's jokes in the past are typically much smarter than this.
quote:
This movie was meant to appeal to adults by taking cars and making them have human problems but with a car twist. That's it. It is meant to be funny not realistic in evolution.
Ok, answer me this: if the cars in this movie were human instead, what has changed with the plot? I'll tell you: nothing. All it does is get rid of the car puns. Even Turbo was at least able to say why it's important that the main character is a snail and not human.
quote:
I wouldn't call him a problem, considering Mater is one of the most loved characters Disney has
Only by the borderline literate and illiterate.
quote:
It's ok for the TRex to be an idiot, b/c we dont' know who it is, but we dont' like the fact that Mater is an idiot b/c it's Larry the Cable Guy. That's what I gathered from that review.
He's more like Pixar's Jar Jar. He's the only Pixar character I can think of I find annoying. The adult audience also rolls their eyes every time he's on screen, even if the kids love him. Pixar does pretty well with this usually and rarely has dud characters.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:54 pm to TeddyPadillac
Take all the Pixar movies where they have personified different things, let's just use Toy Story, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, and Cars. All of these movies take a single idea an expand upon it. TS- what if toys were alive, MI- what if there really were monsters in the closet, FN- what if fish could talk, Cars- what if cars could talk.
Toy Story bases the story on what they perceive toys would worry about: jealousy of newer, cooler toys, being lost, being broken, their owner growing up and being neglected.
Monsters Inc. is set in a world where there actually are monsters in the closet, there's a reason the parents never see them (because they power down the door), and gives them a reason for them to scare. Yes, they are sort of humanized, like in Cars, by them having 9-5 jobs, houses/apartments, relationships, etc. But at least the plot revolves around the very fact that they are monsters.
Finding Nemo takes the idea that fish can talk and expands upon it. The fish all have fish-like personalities. There are predators who like to eat fish, prey who are scared of the vastness of the ocean, seagulls who are annoying as shite, etc. The idea of fish talking is expanded upon in it's own world.
I'll let you take a crack at the expansion of the Cars idea. Because all I can come up with is that they live like humans.
Toy Story bases the story on what they perceive toys would worry about: jealousy of newer, cooler toys, being lost, being broken, their owner growing up and being neglected.
Monsters Inc. is set in a world where there actually are monsters in the closet, there's a reason the parents never see them (because they power down the door), and gives them a reason for them to scare. Yes, they are sort of humanized, like in Cars, by them having 9-5 jobs, houses/apartments, relationships, etc. But at least the plot revolves around the very fact that they are monsters.
Finding Nemo takes the idea that fish can talk and expands upon it. The fish all have fish-like personalities. There are predators who like to eat fish, prey who are scared of the vastness of the ocean, seagulls who are annoying as shite, etc. The idea of fish talking is expanded upon in it's own world.
I'll let you take a crack at the expansion of the Cars idea. Because all I can come up with is that they live like humans.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:54 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Toy Story is so great because the universe is incredibly layered and incredibly terrifying when you think about it. Toy Story 1 didn't even crack surface, with only going after a kid who loves blowing up his toys. These toys Gods are children, Gods that will certainly abandon them at some point, and that creates quite a fricked up little world about a group that is doomed to be left for dead in a landfill.
Nothing close to resembling this has ever crossed the mind of any kid while watching Toy Story. They are thinking wouldn't it be cool if my toys could come to life, like in Doc McStuffins.
quote:
It's ridiculous and requires almost no creativity besides car puns.
in your opinion.
quote:
It is not important at all in the Cars franchise that they are cars.
Why does this matter?
It's not important that Simba is a lion. Where's the bitching for that murderous movie that was given a 1 seed if i recall correctly. Did we really need minions? we couldn't just use midgets like on Willy Wonka? Why did Nemo have to be a fish? they could have all been humans and told the same exact story? Why did they have the little gnomes in Frozen? could have just been humans.
quote:
These movies tell us about the light and dark sides of nature that we take for granted, and everyone can relate to them. Not so much with Cars.
Everyone except kids, b/c they aren't thinking that deep about this kids movie.
So you don't think Cars told a story that kids can relate to? you think it was just cars acting like humans and pointless?
Cars is simple. It's a funny movie that centers around friendship. There's no deep thoughts needed. It shows us that we can be friends with people that may seem different at first or have different interest, once we get to know them. That is something every kid experiences many times in life, as well as adults.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:56 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
They are now. Transformers, GI Joes, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, were all more popular than Hot Wheels, and now Cars sells 5x more than all of those combined, and they have all been making a comeback in the last 5-10 years. The merchandising for Toy Story is just as easy as Cars, yet Cars has done 4x's more. You can sell a Woody or a Buzz just as easy as a Lightning McQueen or Mater.
First off, Transformers are cars. Secondly, ever since they were invented, cars have always been the most popular toys. They may have gone down slightly in the 80s, but if you don't think that cars were highly popular then for boys, then you're delusional. Cars have never not been popular toys, and Pixar figured if they put cool personalities on these cars with a movie, they could print money. The popularity of the toy car is the only reason these movies were made and will continue to do such. So long as Pixar continues to use the money they make with Cars to take a risk on an Inside Out, I'm comfortable with it.
quote:
It is when it's an animated kids movie. Where was Ratatouille 2 if it was such a good movie?
Maybe because it didn't at all warrant a sequel? Seriously, where the hell would they have taken it? It's the same reason we won't see a Wall-e or Up 2. It ended perfectly. In fact I'm a bit pissed they're fricking up a perfect ending by making Toy Story 4.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:57 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
They are now.
Transformers, GI Joes, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, were all more popular than Hot Wheels, and now Cars sells 5x more than all of those combined, and they have all been making a comeback in the last 5-10 years.
The merchandising for Toy Story is just as easy as Cars, yet Cars has done 4x's more. You can sell a Woody or a Buzz just as easy as a Lightning McQueen or Mater.
Holy cow. Cars did not make toy cars a popular toy.
That's lunacy. Cars made Cars toys popular. Very popular yes. (How much Cars can a Cars fan consume if a Cars fan can consume Cars?)
The 80's action figures and automobiles were like 50/50 of the market for every Transformer and TMNT you have a Hot wheel and Tonka. Not only that, I probably preferred Action Figures but had more Hot Wheels and Micro machines just due to the price (6.95 for a Turtle or 1.99 for a Hot Wheel?) Not to mention remote control cars, car tracks and games, etc.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:57 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Cars is just that: Cars acting like humans. It's ridiculous and requires almost no creativity besides car puns. That's all these movies can be boiled down to. It is not important at all in the Cars franchise that they are cars. You wouldn't change the plot at all just by making them humans
Exactly (didn't see this before I sent the above post)
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:03 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Nothing close to resembling this has ever crossed the mind of any kid while watching Toy Story. They are thinking wouldn't it be cool if my toys could come to life, like in Doc McStuffins.
Kids are much smarter than you give them credit for. They aren't drooling idiots and can absorb things much better than the average adult. A 3 year old might not get it, but a 6 year old will realize as he's watching the series that he will outgrow his toys and turn into Andy. He can comprehend the inevitable fate of his toys. He may put it out of mind after watching the movie, but they will be able to comprehend what is going on.
quote:
in your opinion.
Name a quality joke that doesn't have the punchline that has to do with Cars or the fact that a car is doing human or animal like things?
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:05 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
hink: why would there be something like a cow in this universe? Why is the tractor not like everyone else in this universe?
I have no idea what your trying to say here.
a car is a person. The type of car they are typically gives an impression of the kind of person they are.
A tractor is a cow, simple is that.
A VW beetle is bug. pretty simple.
How is the tractor not like everyone else?
quote:
Ok, answer me this: if the cars in this movie were human instead, what has changed with the plot? I'll tell you: nothing. All it does is get rid of the car puns. Even Turbo was at least able to say why it's important that the main character is a snail and not human.
It doesn't. WHy does that matter?
Answer me this: what the plot of Cars had been as big of a success if it were humans instead of cars? I'll tell you: NO.
quote:
quote:
I wouldn't call him a problem, considering Mater is one of the most loved characters Disney has
Only by the borderline literate and illiterate.
and you're not bias
quote:
He's more like Pixar's Jar Jar. He's the only Pixar character I can think of I find annoying. The adult audience also rolls their eyes every time he's on screen, even if the kids love him. Pixar does pretty well with this usually and rarely has dud characters.
Mater isn't a dud character, and you've further shown how your bias towards the actor portraying him has influenced how you like this movie and that character.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News